...........................................................................

Thanks for stopping by! Always click "Read More!" for the full story!

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Unattainable Beauty Standards



Women have often complained about the unattainable beauty standards of today. When there is a 10 out there, who would settle? Why should we even look at a guy who doesn't have washboard abs? What girl sitting next to you in church under fluorescent lights would measure up? Even the celebs don't measure up without the lighting and makeup at photo shoots, onscreen and on the red carpet. With all of those things, even the homely girl sitting next to you at church would look like a treasure. What makes me angry is that men and women alike are being misled by something we can never attain!
More photos
Scar Jo looking average. What can I say for myself? It's 107 and smoky from the fires in LA. Shouldn't be going to the gym.

48 comments:

Deadheart said...

Nothing a few shots of whiskey wouldn't cure.

I think that men have unrealistic expectations of looks, whereas I think women have unrealistic expectations of romantic feelings.

The average guy can't compete with a chick flick leading man any easier than a woman can compete with a swimsuit model.

Clever Elsie said...

Hey! Thanks for stopping by at Singletude!

It's very frustrating how the media, through its digital magic, has raised our standards of physical beauty to a level that only a Barbie doll could meet. If you haven't already, you might want to check out this video produced by Dove, in which an average young woman is transformed into a supermodel with the help of stylists, make-up artists, and finally the wonders of Photoshop. It's a real eye opener.

h mitsumori said...

Wait.. so is this your way of announcing that you're going to start dating the severely ugly men in your church now? :D

SavvyD said...

Deadheart--since my fav chick flick is When Harry Met Sally, it would be RATHER easy. BTW I thought you said you didn't have any problems finding ladies from previous comments.

H--Hmmmm, I haven't seen anyone I would call severely ugly. But, let's put him in a tux and see if it helps.

SavvyD said...

Elise--Wow! Great video. I also found the parody version which takes a good looking guy and transforms him into a slob. Funny, but serious...as I have seen people who have the habits that have put them in serious jeopardy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-kSZsvBY-A

Novaseeker said...

That was a funny reversal video, although I thought the guy, originally, looked more like a femme gay guy.

Deadheart said...

I do have women pursuing me, the problem is that they are ones with, let's just say lots of baggage.

Also, what I mean was that the average guy can't compete with the romantic behavior of a chick flick leading man. Not talking about Billy Crystal's looks, which are certainly very average, maybe less than even.

A chick-flick leading man's lines and actions are all carefully written to push a woman's romantic buttons.

Just like a swimsuit model is groomed and photoshopped to push a guy's buttons.

The concept is the same, the unrealistic expectations are the same, but the attributes that are being valued are different.

vanover521 said...

well obviously they're not perfect. but what makes me sad is that people think they are. people out there think that stars are gorgeous all the time.

stupid people...

SavvyD said...

Glad you all liked it so far. I hesitated to publish this because I didn't want to come across as whiney. I appreciate those photo shoots like Catherine Heigle in that gorgeous blue one shoulder Cavalli dress as much as anyone, but I also know how much WORK it takes to get there.

Anon--movies tell stories in the quickest and most expedient way making everything life and death. You wouldn't want to date some stupid girl who doesn't know that. But then I haaaaated the "love" story in Jerry MacGuire. You. Complete. Me. Ummmm, right.

SavvyD said...

Anon--when you say "baggage" what specifically do you mean? Far to broad a term to unload and no point in being polite since we won't exactly run into each other.

MarkyMark said...

You know what they call chick flicks and romance novels? Women's porn. Why do they call them that? Because, like porn for men, women's porn raises women's expectations to unrealistic and unreasonable levels...

Deadheart said...

Since you asked.

Children for starters. I know, I know, I am totally an evil villain for not being lovingly desirous of providing a household for another man's child. What can I say?

Second, sexual history. As I have taken pains to elaborate before, women become jaded after being used sexually.

This can either mean that she would be really appreciative of a good man, or that she would try to be appreciative, but still living with the pain of the previous relationships where she was used sexually.

This is why 'forgiveness' is not the issue. We're all sinners, I I have looked lustfully at women (as the saying goes), so therefore I have committed adultery according to the bible.

So it is not sin that we are talking about.

It is about the bond that is created between sexual partners. The assurance I would need is that the woman I marry would have been able to break that connection. This is only possible with God.

Otherwise I would worry that I don't have her whole heart, like she would have mine.

Maybe I am making too much out of this sex issue. Maybe that is because I have reached my 40s and have over two decades invested in this manner of being. Maybe I am simply wanted to avoid admitting that I have duped myself, painting myself into a corner where there is no way out. Maybe I should have accepted the offer of sex from some of my girlfriends.

More than one of them dumped me when they found out my 'status'.

For a guy the only death worse than self-imposed celibacy is involuntary celibacy. At least it was my choice. But I could never find a Christian woman who was willing to consider me. I've dated lots of non-Christian women, and many who said they were, but their beliefs and actions showed that they were not committed to God's word.

And wrt chick-flicks:

It is illogical to conclude anything other than that chick flick dialog is specifically crafted to appeal to the emotional preferences of women. At the risk of sounding crude, it is emotional porn for women.

Let me ask you this:

Do you feel the same way after watching a chick flick that you do after watching a documentary film?

Of course not. Every element of a chick flick is crafted to give women the emotional responses that they crave.

I reject the idea that the dialog is fashioned purely for the sake of efficiency. Yes, efficient use of time is important.

A girl telling me that chick-flick dialog is just there to get the story across efficiently is like a guy saying he buys playboy for the political articles.

SavvyD said...

Asking me if I feel the same about chick flick vs. a doc? wow--it depends on the movie! There have been some really beautiful documentaries. There are some really awful chick flicks. There are some enjoyable ones. They don't all deserve to be in the same category.

SavvyD said...

Emotional porn for women...

Such highly charged words!

ALL movies must have carefully crafted dialogue that serves to push the story along or reveal something about a character. No word or scene can be wasted.

This post was about unattainable BEAUTY standards.

Deadheart said...

Now you're just being difficult.

Like I said, anyone who thinks that efficient storytelling is the only factor in chickflick dialog is barking up the wrong tree. Why even tell the story in the first place. From the little girls watching Cinderella to the modern chickflick, the intent is the same.

Women would not obsess about them or for that matter romance novels unless there was a powerful experience to be had from them.

So basically you're unwilling to admit that chickflick dialog is supposed to elicit an emotional response from women?

I can't understand why anyone would want to take an absurd position in defense of something, when the assertion against that something is not even a negative.

Unless it is the idea that these stories function as the female equivalent of porn? That might be a reason to make such a defense, if the aim is to suggest that women are purer of motivation than men.

Deadheart said...

"ALL movies must have carefully crafted dialogue that serves to push the story along or reveal something about a character. No word or scene can be wasted."

What is the point in telling the story in the first place?

This discussion reminds me of the arguments I had when I was a teenager with my non-religious "Christian" cousins when I tried to explain to them why certain secular music contained ungodly lyrics.

Their response?

"Oh, that's just the way the song goes."

This implies that somehow the creation of this song was a foregone conclusion, and that it was not written with some intent.

The whole purpose and intent of much of that music is to convey a message.

Just like the whole point of a chick flick is to give women an emotional response.

And while it may be true that there are time constraints on telling a story in a movie, the whole point of the story, and by extension the whole point of the dialog, is to elicit said emotional response.

Get it? The only reason the chick flick genre exists is to get an emotional response from women.

Just like the reason for shoot-em-up movies is to get guys all charged up. Or why guys go to wrestling/boxing matches.

Go watch a bunch of overweight guys gulping down beer at the sports bar, bitching about how football player is 'lazy' and can't move the football. The reason these guys watch sports is for the vicarious participation in something real. Same with porn. Same with chick flicks.

It is all artificial, and all designed to keep people coming back for more of the fake (which means ad revenue or box office receipts).

This does not mean that movies are wrong, it just means that they are crafted to get you to respond a certain way to MAKE MONEY.

Deadheart said...

"BTW I thought you said you didn't have any problems finding ladies from previous comments."

"Anon--when you say "baggage" what specifically do you mean? Far to broad a term to unload and no point in being polite since we won't exactly run into each other."

"This post was about unattainable BEAUTY standards."

You asked me to elaborate on a side issue and then chastise me for doing it later?

And my reference to chick flicks was to give the other side of the unattainable beauty issue.

Just as most women can not attain that level of beauty (because it is fake in the first place), men cannot attain the level of romantic-dude factor of chick flick leading men (it is also fake).

Both sides have the capacity for unrealistic wants.

SavvyD said...

Anon, Anon, Anon...
You insist on staying so and this is our only forum, whee!

1. Children. Not a big fan of dating men with 3 children or men with 3 children between two ex wives. You marry the exs too. Also, they don't always want more. As for you supporting them, the ex has to support them too. Why don't you find out exactly how the laws work in your state. If you don't want them around at all regardless of laws and liabilty, that is another issue.

2. Sex. Yes, I think you do give the sex thing too much importance. Forgiveness is a factor whether you think it is or not--but more than one person has mentioned that to you among our comments.
3. Chastisement. Your interpretation. I don't mind taking time out for personal things but when it becomes chick flicks and porn for women it's a bit much.

4. Chick flicks. I can only admit to what is true for me, so therefore I will not concede. My taste in movies doesn't reflect the average movie goer and less so the average woman. When I go to a movie I find myself analyzing the whole thing for transitions, motivs, musical elements, cinematography, writing. My favorite "chick flick" is when Harry Met Sally. The next one is You've Got Mail as it is based on the idea that you can fall in love with someone when you stop looking only at the surface. Last movie I went to see? Harry Potter 6. I've got parts of the Fugitive recently--Masterful. I love a Civil Action with John Travolta. Those are great movies to me. I. just. don't. identify. with. what. you. are. talking. about.

MarkyMark said...

Savvy,

Oftentimes, when one mentions the phrase, 'unrealistic beauty standards', the words 'men watching porn are responsible for it' are usually mentioned right on the heels of 'unrealistic beauty standards'. I was countering a likely argument before it was uttered; I was trying to head off a possible 'blame the man' line of thought, which is usually behind such statements.

MarkyMark

SavvyD said...

Marky Mark--*I* wrote nothing along those lines. I don't blame the media ONE IOTA for turning out a perfect product--that's how they make money. I blame people for falling for it--men and women in equal measure.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

Savvy,

The problem is that "unrealistic beauty standards" are blamed on "men watching porn" a million times a day so MarkyMark has every reason to assume that such a line a thought to follow. MM is usually right.

As for Deadheart, there is nothing for him to forgive since nothing was done to him. He isn't placing too much importance on sex. How is he supposed to sexually bond with a woman who has had sex with a bunch of men when he is a virgin? It's not going to happen so he will be on his way to divorce due to the differential between them. Hordes of men such as myself are in a similar situation where they have been completely shut out of the relationship marketplace. In the end I'm better off given how a man can lose everything in divorce including his freedom (not to mention how a woman can behave badly with impunity when married because of this) and Deadheart needs to realize this. After all I have not seen a married man under the age of 60 that isn't miserable after a couple of years of marriage.

Getting back to the original post, what would really help the problem of unobtainable beauty standards would be for women to go their own way on this. But that won't happen.

SavvyD said...

Forgiveness is typically defined as the process of concluding resentment, indignation or anger as a result of a perceived offense, difference or mistake, and/or ceasing to demand punishment or restitution.

This mistake may not be something directed at a person, but a mistake made perhaps against a marriage or relationship.

I'm not saying he has to accept a woman who has slept around a-la-Sex-and-the-city, but I feel like I have to be understanding of men and forgive them for offensive acts they may have committed before knowing me. And that's how even Joshua Harris looked at it with his wife. (not that I like him all that much.)

SavvyD said...

Did you guys watch the video?

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

Savvy,

You're running into several problems here. First of all, we're talking about sins that weren't committed against Deadheart (or me) so forgiveness doesn't apply. Second, there are practical problems to deal with which are not moral issues and thus forgiveness doesn't apply. The big problem for Deadheart (and me if I still cared) is that he is in a position of being "unequally yoked" so to speak because of this issue and the general lack of virginity out there. There are also other problems.

The only place where I can see a sin being committed against Deadheart or me is in women who regard inexperienced men as losers, homosexual, (or worse child molesters). (This describes most women outside the church as well as in the church. Even saying something like a man is so inexperienced that it "gets in the way" indicates this.) Forgiveness here is problematic for two reasons, a lack of repentance (which I can't find a good answer if this is a situation that should be forgiven, but its immaterial with the second reason), and the fact that they haven't stopped sinning against me since they still believe this. Forgiveness in this case doesn't work since as soon as I forgive its negated by the fact that they are still sinning. This also means they don't believe their sexual sins are sins which is a huge problem. Things are really upside down in the modern world when women who have committed sexual sins feel they are in the right and men who haven't are in the wrong.

Deadheart said...

Sigh.

No one asked you to concede anything.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that chick flicks are designed to get an emotional response from women strains the mind.

Then you kind of dodge by saying that you can only speak for yourself, and divert into a discussion about film making's more technical aspects.

If that is so, then are you speaking only for yourself and your own opinions about unrealistic standards of beauty?

You make a post that contains generalizations, yet then you refuse to acknowledge other generalizations, saying you can only speak for yourself and your own preferences.

Which is it?

Your tenacity would be more agreeable if you were more consistent with it.

I'm beginning to think that I have touched a nerve of yours somewhere and you've simply decided to take the contrary position to me regardless, using whatever argument suits.

I will now assert that, in general, dogs have four legs. I anxiously await your rebuttal.

MarkyMark said...

Savvy,

Even WITH makeup, those stars don't do it for me. Besides, skin & bones don't turn me on anyway. I prefer REAL women like Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Sophia Loren, Jane Russell, et al. Then again, the aforementioned women would be too 'fat' to get jobs in Hollywood today-WTF is up with that?! Whoever is behind these unattainable beauty standards, you can rest assured on one thing: it's not REAL MEN in the real world who are behind it...

MarkyMark

Hermes said...

Women have often complained about the unattainable beauty standards of today.
That's because they're utterly and irreparably clueless about men's physical preferences in women. For the millionth time, not that there is any point to telling you this, since women never get it: men don't care about crap like makeup, hairstyle, clothes, and shoes. Our gaze penetrates instantly to the raw materials underneath. It's other women who are holding you this "unrealistic" standard of beauty where somehow nonsense like "sense of style" actually matters.

When there is a 10 out there, who would settle?
I, along with 90% of the average Joes in the world. The problem isn't that there is a 10 out there; the problem is that fat 3's and 4's have had their self-esteem boosted so much that they assume they're 7's and 8's.

What girl sitting next to you in church under fluorescent lights would measure up?
The one with a cute face and trim body, the detection of which light sources have absolutely nothing to do with.

Even the celebs don't measure up without the lighting and makeup at photo shoots, onscreen and on the red carpet.
Yes, they do. I took a look at that video and the slideshow you linked. Without fail, all the women who didn't look that great in their every-day appearance were over 40. The ones who are actually young and attractive (Jessica Alba, Hillary Duff, Lindsay Lohan, etc.) still looked great without their makeup, and there isn't a man who would tell you otherwise.

What makes me angry is that men and women alike are being misled by something we can never attain!
Nope, it's only women. Exhibit A: that picture of Scarlett Johansson supposedly looking "average," when in fact, in that photo, to male eyes, she looks beautiful. If you think she looks "average" because her hair's in a ponytail and she's wearing a sweatshirt, that speaks volumes about how women just don't get it.

SavvyD said...

Hermes--As far as the girls in their 20s--Kiera Knightly hardly looks like the same person. Scar Jo moved from bombshell to cute. They don't look like 10s any more so it makes all wonder if there really IS a ten, so you and "90% of men" (according to you) are chasing an illusion and are so decieved if that is that case.

When you are talking about "fat 3s & 4s" do you mean men? I've encountered men seem to think they are better looking than they are too.

SavvyD said...

Marky--agreed. Those women were real beauties.

SavvyD said...

Deadheart--the only nerve you touched is that I don't care enough about the matter to "argue" or "substantiate". Movies are a business venture to make money. We'll take it up at a time when I have time for it.

Hermes said...

Hermes--As far as the girls in their 20s--Kiera Knightly hardly looks like the same person. Scar Jo moved from bombshell to cute.
Who cares? They still look good. PS: men aren't interested in the bombshell look.

They don't look like 10s any more so it makes all wonder if there really IS a ten, so you and "90% of men" (according to you) are chasing an illusion and are so decieved if that is that case.
I didn't say 90% of men are chasing a 10. I said we would "settle" (your word.) Meaning, settle for less than a 10. I assumed that's what you meant.

When you are talking about "fat 3s & 4s" do you mean men? I've encountered men seem to think they are better looking than they are too.
No, because looks aren't as important to women as they are to men. Trying to compare a guy's looks with a girl's is comparing apples to oranges. A girl's looks are more comparable to a guy's social skills. The male equivalent of a 3-4 is a nerdy, shy guy who's always a little awkward and never manages to say the right thing.

SavvyD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SavvyD said...

Hermes--got it. It's just an example of how much they can change your look.

Women do pay closer attention to looks nowadays. Though I would say that for some, money compensates for ugly, as does being treated well.

Amy said...

I must admit that I'm not necessarily a big believer in the unrealistic standards of beauty argument, as I personally find a good majority of people to be attractive without the help of cosmetics and so forth. Maybe not tens, but certainly not ugly. I'd say this is especially true of younger people in their "prime".

Cosmetics for most of history were/are mainly used to simulate and better highlight the looks of fertility, sexual arousal, and youth. Think of rouged cheeks and lips and what they are meant to be symbolizing. Enough said. There are certainly other usages for cosmetics as well: ceremonial, corrective, and so forth, but ultimately the imitation of fertile looks is what they are used for.

I read an interesting book several years ago titled "The Survival of the Prettiest" that discussed how beauty and fertility relate and why we--both men and women--prefer what we typically do. It's interesting reading and shatters much of the idea that heels, fashionable clothing, and the trappings of our decadent, materialistic culture are really what men want.

Perhaps you have heard the saying that women dress for other women but undress for men? It sums up the issue quite well, but nowadays we also diet for other women and inflict all sorts of toxic chemicals and torture products upon ourselves to impress other women as well. I used to do some local modeling work and also worked as a makeup artist and from that experience, more women liked me all dolled up while men preferred me looking more natural. When my husband came across my profile on the website we met on, he much preferred my laidback "on the hiking trails" pictures to my glammed up evening gown ones. ;o)

When it comes to the issue of beauty, I think the best thing women can do is "go their own way" and define for themselves who they are going to be, how they are going to dress, and what products they are going to use. I cannot tell you how many times I found myself cringing while putting heaps of product on gorgeous faces, though the owner appeared not to realize how naturally beautiful she really was. :o(

Anonymous said...

"What makes me angry is that men and women alike are being misled by something we can never attain!
Nope, it's only women. Exhibit A: that picture of Scarlett Johansson supposedly looking "average," when in fact, in that photo, to male eyes, she looks beautiful. If you think she looks "average" because her hair's in a ponytail and she's wearing a sweatshirt, that speaks volumes about how women just don't get it."

Nailed it.

10 million points to the aptly named Hermes.

WE don't have anything to do with your unrealistic beauty standards.

Ask any man and he'll tell you that botoxed faces and penciled-in eyebrows look freaking HIDEOUS! You girls are the ones that think that crap looks hot. Don't blame us.

SavvyD said...

The PUA community seems to want tens... take a look a Roissy's blog. Men dooo have something to do with it.

Deadheart said...

Deadheart says:

First of all, arrive at your girlfriend's house and find her in dumpy sweatpants. She's cute, no prob.

Next day show up and she's wearing a skirt, boots, and ponytail and a tight sweater.

Guess which one guys like better?

Clothing, hairstyle and makeup do make a difference. They won't turn a 4 into a 9, but it helps. There is also a psychological element: Any woman who is TRYING to look alluring is going to appeal more to a guy.

The very fact that she wants to look good for you is showing you, as a guy, that she respects your preferences for an attractive girl.

The same applies somewhat to guys, although I'm not sure if woman are turned on by NICE clothing/haircut as much as they are turned off by bad clothing/haircut.

Like table manners, for instance:

Is a guy with impeccable table manners a significant plus? Or a very small plus. In other words, would these wonderful table manners be enough to tip a guy out of the 'just be friends' category?

I would suspect that it would not. I WOULD guess that terrible table manners would be disqualifying, though.

With women, dressy appearance and such might just be enough, since guys are so visual.

The equivalent for women might me social status, or wealth, since those are valued higher by women.

Let's look at the issue of looks in total isolation:

Assume two people:

A quiet guy, makes minimum wage, lives in his parent's basement and has minimal social skill, but is devastatingly attractive.

Now assume a girl who has all the same attributes.

In general, while some women might find the guy's physical attractiveness sufficient to retain their interest, for many women, the other aspects of his situation would be deal-breakers.

For the girl, most guys could care less about the other attributes, as long as the attractiveness level is there.

This is unfair, of course. But the sinful nature of humanity is a reality.


More importantly, we are who we CULTIVATE ourselves to be.

A guys that looks at too many issues of Maxim can end up being dissatisfied with the girls he dates and even marries.

A guy that is a total alpha and beds dozens of women will have a tougher time emotionally bonding to the woman he marries. Plus, with men's desire for variety (undeniable), he has become accustomed to variety and may have a hard time being faithful.

I personally feel that the current American obsession with celebrities and sex has cultivated a preference in many (if not most) people for something unrealistic.

The worst part is how many Christians are playing around the edges of this modern culture rather than deciding that they are going to repudiate it.

This takes a special kind of willpower (and believe me, I understand the difficulty of willpower).

As followers of Christ, we are not called to satisfaction or pleasure, we are called to duty.

I'm waiting for a woman who feels the same way. Or I will remain single.

Deadheart said...

"The PUA community seems to want tens... take a look a Roissy's blog. Men dooo have something to do with it."

But is that relevant for Christians?

Unless you are making the point more broadly.

But as Christians, we have to recognize that the world is full of sin, so why would that surprise you?

When an agnostic libertine wants to bang hot girls on the first date, why should that be a shock or scandalous?

I've sought and found many non-Christian friends because I find it easier to tolerate this behavior from people who at least have the reason of being unsaved.

Getting sneered at by some skank in a bar is FAR, FAR preferable to receiving that treatment from one of my 'sisters in the Lord'.

(Who are all holding out for a reformed, hot bad boy, or a metrosexual Joel Osteen).

SavvyD said...

"But is that relevant for Christians?"

Yes.

Christian men talk about not wanting to date "fat" chicks. You have mentioned it too.

Should it be relevant?

Somewhat. But we are supposed to look at a person's heart also.

All the other stuff you brought out I don't even know how to answer. For me, table manners help a great deal. That's why I wrote about it. That's another post and I wish you had commented about it there.

Deadheart said...

Let's separate the attainable from the unattainable.

Height and weight proportionate is not unattainable.

You can't change your face, height, or hair color. But weight loss is doable.

Most Christian men are not asking for a woman with a svelte figure. But a very heavyset person is not normally appealing to anyone.

Would you date a really fat guy? Even with a beautiful heart?

If you are not attracted to obese men, are you subjecting them to your unrealistic standard? I say no. Normal healthy weight is a realistic standard, in my opinion.

Deadheart said...

Let's separate the attainable from the unattainable.

Height and weight proportionate is not unattainable.

You can't change your face, height, or hair color. But weight loss is doable.

Most Christian men are not asking for a woman with a svelte figure. But a very heavyset person is not normally appealing to anyone.

Would you date a really fat guy? Even with a beautiful heart?

If you are not attracted to obese men, are you subjecting them to your unrealistic standard? I say no. Normal healthy weight is a realistic standard, in my opinion.

SavvyD said...

You can too change your hair color. You can even play with eye color.
You can even change your face.

Weight gain can be caused by--accidents, injuries, health issues that are not easily resolvable.

Many don't qualify by saying what they mean by obese vs. fat vs. acceptable vs. hot they just lump it all together to "fat" there's a difference between saying "a really fat" guy and someone who is a few extra. I actually have dated a few heavy guys I really liked at first, but when they didn't treat me right, I dumped them.

Deadheart said...

"Weight gain can be caused by--accidents, injuries, health issues that are not easily resolvable.
"

Yes, in a small number of cases this is correct. But most people can lose some weight. The small number of people who are overweight from accidents, etc. is insignificant from a statistical standpoint, so I don't know why it needs to be brought up.

I don't mind slightly overweight gals. But substantially overweight is not going to work for me.

Congrats to you for dating some heavier guys, very open minded. Many people won't.

SavvyD said...

Deadheart--it is more significant than you imagine. I've met many people who developed weight problems as a result of psychotropic medications (Prozac, etc)

With so many people having weight issues, we should seek out a common thread and not assume that a person is making no effort.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Deadheart said...

More significant than I imagine? How do you know what I imagine?

Here's a truth: most people could lose some weight if they tried.

That's not an opinion, that is a fact. You're entitled to deny this truth if you like.

And you will fight me on this, I suspect.

I've dated a lot of gals who are stubborn just to be stubborn. It's kinda cute at first, but it wears out if they can't back it up. A few can, though, which is kinda sexy.

Yours in blissful aggravation,

Deadheart

SavvyD said...

You are overly dismissive of the core issue. That is why I said it is more significant that you imagine. I only have your imagination in the form of what you WRITE. Therefore my statement still holds.

I even knew of a girl who had the lap band surgery and ONLY AFTER discovered that she had low thyroid which was the cause of her weight gain.

"The small number of people who are overweight from accidents, etc. is insignificant from a statistical standpoint, so I don't know why it needs to be brought up."

WHERE are your statistics? It is unreasonable to quote amorphous statistics as this arguement has NO actual support. I at least gave examples.

Deadheart said...

Women are the overly picky ones:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-online-dating/


Yep - It IS emotional porn:

http://visionarydaughters.com/2009/11/how-twilight-is-re-vamping-romance


Go read some of the womens' comments about "Edward". Really.

When you couple the unrealistic standards women have for looks and status with the evidence in the Twilight phenomenon, you see the picture clearly.

Well, I guess none of those fine Christian girls want guys like me.

Okay.

By the time these adult children come down to earth, they will be too addicted to the bad boys they crave to be of interest to Christian men like myself who have saved themselves for marriage. And OLD.

Dying alone without a wife is preferable to playing second fiddle to her childish fantasies and attempts to win over "hot guys".

Don't get me wrong - it is not easy. Not by a long shot. After a time, the pain of mistreatment begins to develop tangible physical characteristics - I know well how the term "heartache" came to be.

Now go ahead and accuse me of being "bitter" - that's just a gal's way of telling a guy he's worthless.

Maye you could call me a loser too - that's always a good one - fun!

SavvyD said...

Well, I'm not too picky. I can't speak for anyone else.

BITTER:–adjective
1. having a harsh, disagreeably acrid taste, like that of aspirin, quinine, wormwood, or aloes.
2. producing one of the four basic taste sensations; not sour, sweet, or salt.
3. hard to bear; grievous; distressful: a bitter sorrow.
4. causing pain; piercing; stinging: a bitter chill.
5. characterized by intense antagonism or hostility: bitter hatred.
6. hard to admit or accept: a bitter lesson.
7. resentful or cynical: bitter words.
8. Deadheart

PS I have no interest in twilight, so argue with someone who does.

Do you really think you are a worthless loser? that's sad.